7/4/2013 3:07 PM (edited)
I ran some numbers for the top 25 scoring teams in two worlds (Argento vs Bryant) at about the point in their seasons (end of playoffs 19 vs 17 games) to give a justifiable comparisons. Because I can't compare all teams I must assume these comparisons would be maintianed for the rest of the teams in the world. Here are some comparisons and comments:

D1AA - Argento has only 4 human coaches so the comparison will be pretty much Sim coaches vs the combo of human/sims in Bryant.

                                                                                                                                                                                                FF
 Version  Total Points  Total Yards Pass Yards Pass Average Rush  Yards Rush Ave Sacks Int       /
3.0' 31.6 401.2 276.5 12.5 124.8 3.5 49.6 11.3 1.9
2.0' 37.8 449.9 276.4 13.8 173.4 4.4 41.8 33.5 24.6

So with a Sim vs human/sim mix - I see some differences which could be explained by the fact that the team ratings difference in 2.0 should lend itself to some increased values (total points, total yards, perhaps rush yards) Sacks for the best 2.0 teams (probably human coached and recruited) are lower than for the mostly sim 3.0 version. Glaring differences are for interceptions and forced fumbles. The 1.9 for fumbles is the average per team for the season. Minor problem is the 20% difference in rush average.

DII - 
                                                                                                                                                                                    FF
Version Total Points  Total Yards Pass Yards Pass Ave Rush Yards Rush Ave Sacks INT     
3.0' 39.7 492 420.9 16.8 71 2.2 67.6 14.6 3.8
2.0' 36.7 442.2 273 13.6 169.2 4.4 36.6 28.7 23.1

More of an even mix of sim and human coaches in this comparison. Points and total yards are not too far off. But Pass yards vs running yards are way off as we human coaches figure out you can't run effectively in 3.0 and passing is hard to stop. Rushing yardage is 50% in 3.0 compared to 2.0. Sacks are higher due to the increased passing plays. INT and FF again are way off between the games.

DIII - 
                                                                                                                                                                                    FF
Version Total Points  Total Yards Pass Yards Pass Ave Rush Yds Rush Ave Sacks INT        
3.0' 34.5 407.5 305.9 13.6 101.6 3.1 72.4 13.2 4.9
2.0' 40.3 475.3 338.7 13.4 136.7 4.2 39.3 29.2 23.7

Again a comparison of sim/human mixed worlds. This shows a better indication that the scheme of the engine is looking at ratings numbers themselves as a means of success vs ratings/player match-ups. As these world mature through 4 seasons, better teams should be able to put up higher values, but in 3.0 the numbers for total points, passing and rushing yards are all lower. Rush average is still low, sacks up due to increased pass attempts and INT and FF still very low compared to 2.0.


Comparing these worlds I would say: Rushing needs to ramped up to get a 4.5 average of so for the best teams. Interceptions and forced fumbles need to be increased - but using reasonable combinations of ratings to target those players who are prone to fumble. Sacks need to be looked at, but they may fix themselves if passing isn't as overwhelming.
7/5/2013 12:48 AM
Bottom line, 3.0 is a mess.  Thinking the intent here is for 3.0 to be so bad, that we actually come to appreciate 2.0. 
7/5/2013 8:23 AM
And the intent is working very well, isn't it?
7/5/2013 11:56 AM
Those sneaky bastards
7/5/2013 2:56 PM
Posted by chetty1963 on 7/5/2013 12:48:00 AM (view original):
Bottom line, 3.0 is a mess.  Thinking the intent here is for 3.0 to be so bad, that we actually come to appreciate 2.0. 
Just lost in my Wilkenson - Menlo CC team to a Pacific Lutharen team which is rated 68 points lower than mine (560 - 492). We lost 16 - 7. We beat them 39 - 0 earlier in the season. I have a conference of all sims and didn't change my game plan (why - I was 13 - 0) .  I really do not appreciate 2.0. It is worthless attempt at a computer simulation, with very little meaningful interaction on the part of the paying players which can make a difference if the sim downplays player match-ups.

Pant pant pant, - OK I feel better - a little.

TWO POINT OH - Really SUCKS!
7/5/2013 8:03 PM
I also dislike 2.0.  3.0 doesn't make me appreciate it anymore, it just makes me think EA sports NCAA Football is more worthy passtime than Wis.   

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.